Amy Winehouse dead

[METAL ON METAL]

Loki's amazing insights on mental health return. Sooner or later you will get your head 'round the fact that - just like some people beat cancer and others don't - some people overcome addiction or depression or other mental disorders and others don't. Until that day stfu with your sub-tabloid nonsense.

 

Please tell me you didn't just compare drug addiction to someone having cancer.

[WildSybianRider]

Yeah, I did. I know it's an emotive example but that's precisely why I used it. You wouldn't say to Bobby Robson's family "what the fuck, my mate had cancer and he's running the half marathon next year. Bob needed to pull his finger out".

[Glen Quagmire]

Go on then!

 

The claim isn't a controversial one among neuroscientists and behavioural geneticists, but fair enough.

 

Here's an article titled 'Genetic influences on impulsivity, risk taking, stress responsivity and vulnerability to drug abuse and addiction' published in the November 2005 edition of Nature Neuroscience which concludes that 'Addiction is a complex disorder with interacting factors, including environmental factors, drug-induced neurobiological changes, comorbidity, personality traits and stress responsivity. Clearly, multiple genetic variants that affect these factors may work in concert to affect vulnerability and severity of addiction. As a concrete example, a functional SNP in the OPRM1 gene (A118G) influences the

[METAL ON METAL]

Yeah, I did. I know it's an emotive example but that's precisely why I used it. You wouldn't say to Bobby Robson's family "what the fuck, my mate had cancer and he's running the half marathon next year. Bob needed to pull his finger out".

 

Then I'd advise you to use a better example because that's a very poor one.

 

In the start at least, its the person themselves that fully chooses to use drugs whilst knowing the possible consequences. Sure it may lead to addiction and demons but the majority of the time they are responsible (at least partially) for their own downfall. Cancer doesn't hold boundaries.

[Chris B]

Then I'd advise you to use a better example because that's a very poor one.

 

In the start at least, its the person themselves that fully chooses to use drugs whilst knowing the possible consequences. Sure it may lead to addiction and demons but the majority of the time they are responsible (at least partially) for their own downfall. Cancer doesn't hold boundaries.

 

Why is that important?

[Kiffy]

I will repeat what I said earlier, to make out that Amy Winehouse's death is a tragedy, then so to was Osama Bin Laden's.

 

Well one could make a bit of a distinction there, Amy winehouse was a young talented woman who never managed to manage getting off drugs and as a result lost her life, couldn't care less about the fans but she lives behind a family and friends who will all have to deal with the pain of their passing. And if that many people suffering isn't tragic then your reading of the word is alot different than mine.

Osama bin laden, on the other hand, was a mass murdering fuck head, yes he'll be missed but ultimately his death makes the world a better place, so on balance even with the heartache of his followers (which by the way, there shouldn't be much off, he's off to see his 7 virgins having died while fighting a holy war so he died a glorious death and it is the will of allah, it's all ok).

Essentially, being a junky does not lower the worth of your life to anything like what being a terrorist does, and you're kind of a twat to suggest otherwise.

Incidentally, I notice you said earlier in the head you'd helped family members with addiction? One presumes by your standards that if you'd failed, and they'd choked to death on their own vomit one night you'd not class it as a tragedy?

[Kiffy]

Then I'd advise you to use a better example because that's a very poor one.

 

In the start at least, its the person themselves that fully chooses to use drugs whilst knowing the possible consequences. Sure it may lead to addiction and demons but the majority of the time they are responsible (at least partially) for their own downfall. Cancer doesn't hold boundaries.

 

So, by the same logic, people who eat alot of red meat and get bowel cancer, people who stay out in the sun and get skin cancer, smokers who get lung cancer, in those cases we need to point out it was the sufferers own fault?

[Glen Quagmire]

Well one could make a bit of a distinction there, Amy winehouse was a young talented woman who never managed to manage getting off drugs and as a result lost her life, couldn't care less about the fans but she lives behind a family and friends who will all have to deal with the pain of their passing. And if that many people suffering isn't tragic then your reading of the word is alot different than mine.

I am sure that her friends and family will miss her. But I still don't regard her death as a tragedy.

 

Osama bin laden, on the other hand, was a mass murdering fuck head, yes he'll be missed but ultimately his death makes the world a better place, so on balance even with the heartache of his followers (which by the way, there shouldn't be much off, he's off to see his 7 virgins having died while fighting a holy war so he died a glorious death and it is the will of allah, it's all ok).

Well by that rationality, by buying the illegal substances that she took, Amy Winehouse more than likely contributed to the criminal, underground drug trade and all the suffering that people on different parts of the planet are subject to because of it. Mexico, Columbia, Afghanistan, heck even London, Dublin and Limerick. Her death means one less customer for the scumbags involved who lose money in the process, and while her own death isn't likely to change things on its own, a major decline of custom because of death can see some of this activity collapse.

 

Incidentally, I notice you said earlier in the head you'd helped family members with addiction? One presumes by your standards that if you'd failed, and they'd choked to death on their own vomit one night you'd not class it as a tragedy?

You'd have to elaborate - if they were a chronic alcoholic and neither myself or someone else were able to do anything in time, I'd say no. But if it was someone just enjoying a few drinks that night that turned bad (say their drink was spiked), then I probably would say it was.

[Loki]

Personally, I'd agree that genetic, personality and environmental factors has a significant impact on the vulnerability to certain people to succumb to mental health problems and addictions. Different people need different approaches in trying to overcome this and such studies as linked are good research into the causes. But Loki's point, or at least the way I seen it, is still perfectly valid - in that someone with a mental illness or an addiction needs to have an element of willpower, work and belief in themselves to overcome at least some of their problems. This is not the line of "pull yerself together lad!", but rather working alongside people you know that are there to support you. You may not succeed straight away, it may take some time, it may be painful and frightening at times, you may fall off the wagon at some point, but if you persist then some things at least will almost always be better in the long term. If you don't give yourself the will to do it, then you will fail - it may take the intervention of someone else to get you started but once you're conscious enough to rationally think then you need to start making the changes and effort.

 

Yes, that's exactly what I was saying. The articles Zinc linked to are all very interesting, but are data on something I wasn't arguing about (the links between a person's genetic makeup and their disposition or reaction to drug addiction).

 

I shall ignore WildSybianRider's usual useless and over-wrought contributions. It would be nice to have a discussion on mental health without people retreating into incredibly simplistic camps and throwing rocks at the other side. There is an interesting debate to be had on the cause/effect relationship between the rise of psychiatry/psychiatric drug treatments and the rise in diagnosed mental health issues, for example. I think Carbomb and I got into that in the suicide thread briefly.

[d-d-d-dAz]

In the start at least, its the person themselves that fully chooses to use drugs whilst knowing the possible consequences. Sure it may lead to addiction and demons but the majority of the time they are responsible (at least partially) for their own downfall. Cancer doesn't hold boundaries.

 

People ignore my posts far too much.

 

But, in summary of what I pointed out earlier, substance use doesn't lead to addiction. The existence of an addictive personality leads to substance abuse.

 

People choose to take drugs for a lot of reasons (some to cope, some to dull pain, others to just have a larf) but the common denominator is that the people who struggle to dislocate that transient moment in time from the rest of their lives, and continue to use substances, are ones whose personality predetermines a form of addiction in their lives.

[WildSybianRider]

Loki, you're being very civilised and restraining from rock-slinging, sure. Well done for that. It doesn't change that you're talking shite which doesn't amount to much more than mentioning the legions of recovering addicts / depressives you've obviously analysed in-depth and how their success in confronting their problems can be extrapolated to anyone with mental health disorders. Pinc's data was *entirely* relevant but you dismiss it because it doesn't fit with your anecdotal nonsense.

[The Maestro]

Not that I agree with it 100%, but you could say that addiction is a sympton of a greedy and decadent society.

[DJ Kris]

Explain then...

I'm mearly pointing out that you are shifting the goal posts to suit your argument. Not content with the actual definition of tragedy, you prefer you own meaning.

[bobbins]

Though it is an intuitive notion, the idea that all people are equally able to make the kind of change you're alluding to is reductionist and demonstrably wrong. No two addicts are the same and the idea that praise and blame should be apportioned in equal measure to all addicts depending on their recovery or lack thereof is myopic.

*stands and applauds* This is the absolute key point.

 

What I don't understand about the Quagmire/LoKi viewpoint is what if Winehouse had scraped through the other night and she found the strength to seek help and overcome her problems. It's a perfectly reasonable hypothetical, but we'll never know. Why should she be criticised for not having the luck to survive a few near death scrapes before a potential recovery. I'm sure everyone who's had similar issues realise they could have kicked the bucket before they eventually clicked and cleaned up. It's a terrible shame when anyone dies and misses the chance to live a happy life.

 

The silly semantic argument about the word tragedy is particularly wrong when you think about the Greek and theatrical origins of the word. It actually applies far more to Amy Winehouse than it does to the Norway massacre.

 

Someone on Facebook posted the following statement, which rings true to a certain degree;

 

You know what makes me sick, most of the people who liked Amy Winehouse would never have looked at a homeless drunk on the street twice! She arrives on stage in a state, cant walk or sing, "oh the poor troubled girl"....alcoholic on the street stumbles and falls, "thats disgraceful, look at the state of him"...Society eh? Its the truth, someones got to say it!

So should we learn to treat the likes of Winehouse with the same contempt and loathing that we reserve for street junkies? Or should we treat homeless, pissheads and smackheads with the same empathy and understanding that we reserve for junkie popstars?

[David]

So should we learn to treat the likes of Winehouse with the same contempt and loathing that we reserve for street junkies? Or should we treat homeless, pissheads and smackheads with the same empathy and understanding that we reserve for junkie popstars?

I would hope it's the latter.